6 ms·

The Safety of Nuclear's Future

5 points by ericdanielski 5y ago

aliasEli 5y ago
This article discusses "nuclear" but does not include the word "fusion". Likewise, it discusses several countries, but it does not include "north korea".
- AtlasBarfed 5y ago
  fusion doesn't want the stink of the word "nuclear". One of the best marketing ideas for thorium breeder reactors is to call themselves "thorium reactors" rather than "nuclear reactors. This memo stinks of the established corruption that tainted the term "nuclear": - solid fuel reprocessors protecting their turf and forcing solid fuel designs - government regulatory structures forcing light water reactors and restricting/preventing/choking funding from far superior alternative designs - militaries protecting its access to weapons-grade isotopes - treating everyone like they are 5 years old in press releases, which aside from being condescending, feels like they are hiding things - hand-waving safety, which fukushima showed is very much a problem and wasn't just a "crazy russians at Chernobyl" problem and will be until the Light Water/Solid Fuel Rod design is finally abandoned for a modern safe-by-default design like LFTR. Wind and Solar are currently running away with the power generation economics, but LFTR-based nuclear reactors absolutely should be neck-and-neck with them, and if the US had given proper investment two decades ago, we'd likely have modular small-scale reactors for a very very wide range of applications that is carbon-free: - baseload grid - industrial (aluminum + steel) - desalination (extract lithium too) - actual green hydrogen for transportation needs that aren't BEV possible like shipping and airlines - LFTRs can reprocess/burn/consume solid fuel rod waste as well Basically until an entire generation of baby-boomer regulatory people die off and eliminate the chokehold of solid fuel light water reactors, nuclear will be a second-rate option.

6 ms·

The Safety of Nuclear's Future

5 points by ericdanielski 5y ago

aliasEli 5y ago
This article discusses "nuclear" but does not include the word "fusion". Likewise, it discusses several countries, but it does not include "north korea".
- AtlasBarfed 5y ago
  fusion doesn't want the stink of the word "nuclear". One of the best marketing ideas for thorium breeder reactors is to call themselves "thorium reactors" rather than "nuclear reactors. This memo stinks of the established corruption that tainted the term "nuclear": - solid fuel reprocessors protecting their turf and forcing solid fuel designs - government regulatory structures forcing light water reactors and restricting/preventing/choking funding from far superior alternative designs - militaries protecting its access to weapons-grade isotopes - treating everyone like they are 5 years old in press releases, which aside from being condescending, feels like they are hiding things - hand-waving safety, which fukushima showed is very much a problem and wasn't just a "crazy russians at Chernobyl" problem and will be until the Light Water/Solid Fuel Rod design is finally abandoned for a modern safe-by-default design like LFTR. Wind and Solar are currently running away with the power generation economics, but LFTR-based nuclear reactors absolutely should be neck-and-neck with them, and if the US had given proper investment two decades ago, we'd likely have modular small-scale reactors for a very very wide range of applications that is carbon-free: - baseload grid - industrial (aluminum + steel) - desalination (extract lithium too) - actual green hydrogen for transportation needs that aren't BEV possible like shipping and airlines - LFTRs can reprocess/burn/consume solid fuel rod waste as well Basically until an entire generation of baby-boomer regulatory people die off and eliminate the chokehold of solid fuel light water reactors, nuclear will be a second-rate option.